I wonder: could we as a society just run LLM-accellerated scientific programs for new battery/solar designs, CRISPR-like enzymes, cancer cures - the stuff where outcomes really matter - while also maintaining a humans-only sandbox for these people to experience the joys of the life of the mind in?
Post
it would also not be unfair to note that her arguments are very bad, and that she has every reason to know that they’re very bad, but she uses them anyway.
My favorite parts of Bender & Koller (2020), in which they defend their claim — that LLMs can’t learn meaning — by explaining that it should not be expected to apply to actual LLM training processes.
I think I got a headache just trying to understand her twisted logic. But that last sentence? lmao??
0 reposts9 likes
There’s a running philosophical “mimicry” argument that if the thing is programmed, or even if trained from assembled materials, its domain is limited to that vision. It doesn’t even consider usefulness 🤷♂️ Even so, models can reason by analogy outside their training set, but no one has updated that